Mormons:what Are The Top 10 Proofs Of Bom Historicity

[USU78]

I'm still looking for the hymns, the proverbs, the wisdom literature, the true parables (which are generally a few lines long -- not four pages of olive trees and vinyards long).

Well, let's see here:

I am aware of a Late Second Temple extended allegory about cows that goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on -- kinda like the Olive Tree Allegory in Jacob.

I am aware of the Psalm of Nephi in 2 Nephi 4:16â??35.

I am aware of the proverbial nature of a few of Lehi's recorded statements (i.e., the "joy" statement).

I am aware of the "wisdom" references in Jacob and elsewhere that have been pointed out by at least 2 folks, one of whom posts hereabouts now and again.

But I suppose they don't count for the BoM being what it says it is.

USU "Try as I may, I cannot make sense of Enoch's cows" 78

[Jaybear]

The fact that David Whitmer, after leaving the Church, after calling Joseph Smith a fallen prophet, after saying that the church was following the arms of man and not God..TO HIS DYING DAY professed that the BoM was a true scripture of God.

Personally if someone is that torked at the Church and its leadership then you can pretty much trust that such a statement would carry alot more weight as he had more to gain by exposing the BoM as false than holding to its truth.

So, now...excluding revelation and faith someone please provide historocity of the existence of God..... (just kidding....thought a little humor would be fun!)

I take it then that you believe David Whitmer when he says an Angel showed him the book of mormon, but you don't believe David Whitmer when he says God told him to leave the mormons.

How does that work?

[maklelan]

I take it then that you believe David Whitmer when he says an Angel showed him the book of mormon, but you don't believe David Whitmer when he says God told him to leave the mormons.

How does that work?

That's a pretty good point, but when one assertion is corroborated by other witnesses who also defended that very same testimony to their deaths despite growing to resent the prophet, it is held up. If I talk to your mom and find out if you've ever lied in your life it doesn't automatically dismiss everything you've ever said. Claiming God told him to leave the church is a clear indication of apostasy, so no, I don't believe him. The two cannot both be true. One is true and one is false, or they are both false. Numerous witnesses to the former assertion make it clear what is true and what is not.

[JarMan]

For:

The development of written language in MA at precisely the time that the Book of Mormon peoples arrived. A system of writing is a monumental development for a pre-historic society. The vast majority of societies never do independently develop a written language. Usually they either get the idea of writing from another society or they never do develop writing -- even after being exposed to it from other cultures.

It seems MUCH more likely to me that the Mayans learned the concept of writing from the Lehites than the idea that writing was 1) independently developed, 2) in the precise area of the Americas that the Lehites probably lived, 3) at the precise time that the Book of Mormon says that the Lehites arrived.

Now add in the fact that the Mayan writing system has similarities to Egyptian hieroglyphs (which the Lehites were familiar with), and the coincidences should astound any honest person.

Now new Olmec writing has been discovered (on a "large stone", nonetheless) which pre-dates the Lehites by about 300 years. But surprise, surprise the Olmec script is totally unrelated to the Mayan script. This is perfectly consistent with the story found in the Book of Mormon. But it is perplexing to scholars who expected that an Olmec script would show the origins of the Mayan script.

New evidence and analysis is now showing that the isthmian script may have descended from the Mayan script instead of the other way around, which is consistent with the northward migration of the Nephites in the Book of Mormon.

It seems like the more we learn about the development of writing in MA, the more it seems consistent with the Book of Mormon.

[PosterMania]

I take it then that you believe David Whitmer when he says an Angel showed him the book of mormon, but you don't believe David Whitmer when he says God told him to leave the mormons.

How does that work?

Didnt say that I did or did not believe both.

[Uncle Dale]

USU "Try as I may, I cannot make sense of Enoch's cows" 78

A free face-lift

http://solomonspalding.com/UD-icon3.jpg

UD

[Tchild2]

1) God doesn't work by disappearing golden plates so that evidence is hidden, those perpetuating a fraud want the evidence (or lack of it) to disappear.

[PosterMania]

1) God doesn't work by disappearing golden plates so that evidence is hidden, those perpetuating a fraud want the evidence (or lack of it) to disappear.

Quesiton: what would we then make of:

1. the ark of the covenant

2. Noahs ark

3. The Holy Grail

[Irondukesteve]

Very good thread idea...

My Proofs would have to be:

1. The Arabian Geography being fairly accurate to the Nephi account e.g. Nahom, the River and the Valley etc.

2. Internal consistency (though that is not a big one for me as JS worked on the story since he was about 16)

3. cant think of anything else.

4. Fort of Lachish and the Yemeni Jews that arrived there after the Babylon attack on Jerusalem

5.

My doubts

1. Anti-masonic rhetoric in the BoM

2. It clearly being translocated and altered slightly from the BIble

3. It originating from a hat with stones which JS previously used for other purposes.

4. Martin Harris's confession that he saw them in an entranced state.

5. 2 dimensional characters representing Deists, Universalists, and atheists (who were characters attacked in Joseph's day)

6. The Documentary Hypothesis being that the Pentateuch was not compiled when Lehi left Jerusalem.

7. DNA evidence

8. Zelph

9. Joseph's Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian language, Book of Abraham, and Kinderhook Plates being inaccurate translations.

10. James Strang decieving the Smith's Martin and inpart influencing Cowdery and his father William

11. Joseph Senior's dream in 1st Nephi.

12. A dream I had of Joseph, Cowdery and and another man in a small cabin room with sawdust on the floor. It was whilst I was in the MTC. I asked them what they were doing and they looked as though they were concocting something to make money and I didnt feel good going in the room. I received this dream after praying to know if what I was doing was right. This was when I was 19 and was completely convinced of the authenticity of the BoM and that the churh was true. I ignored the experience but now I do wonder if Heavenly Father was trying to say something. Oh well....I will just say it was a random dream.

Oops sorry that was 12 my bad....oh well it makes up for the lack of proofs

[Chris Smith]

12. A dream I had of Joseph, Cowdery and and another man in a small cabin room with sawdust on the floor. It was whilst I was in the MTC. I asked them what they were doing and they looked as though they were concocting something to make money and I didnt feel good going in the room. I received this dream after praying to know if what I was doing was right. This was when I was 19 and was completely convinced of the authenticity of the BoM and that the churh was true. I ignored the experience but now I do wonder if Heavenly Father was trying to say something. Oh well....I will just say it was a random dream.

Interesing. Thanks for sharing.

[Warship]

In regards to the Columbus thing. I have heard this a lot. I have always thought Amerigo Vespucci might be an interesting candidate. Afterall he did discover the Americas, was the first to recognize they were a new world, and they are named after him. Columbus went to his grave thinking he found Asia if I remember right.

[USU78]

USU "Try as I may, I cannot make sense of Enoch's cows" 78

A free face-lift

http://solomonspalding.com/UD-icon3.jpg

UD

Oh, sure, blame me for everything. Next you'll be saying the Psalm of Nephi is derivative of Cotton Mather or some such nonsense.

USU "Can't blame everything on Elder Rigdon's Illuminati: Jonathan Edwards gets some of the blame" 78

[consiglieri]

1) God doesn't work by disappearing golden plates so that evidence is hidden, those perpetuating a fraud want the evidence (or lack of it) to disappear.

Seems to me that practically everything about God is hidden. From Jesus' resurrected body to the gold plates. Maybe I'm just not in the right place at the right time. Oh, well. What amazes me about the Book of Mormon is that it actually exists in time and space, and that we can have a 500+ page text to discuss. Kudos to Mighty Curelom for being so even-handed in his list of pro's and con's. I would tend to agree with both sides of his list. The deciding factor for me, though, was that danged manifestation of God when I read the Book of Mormon.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Luigi]

For:

The development of written language in MA at precisely the time that the Book of Mormon peoples arrived. A system of writing is a monumental development for a pre-historic society. The vast majority of societies never do independently develop a written language. Usually they either get the idea of writing from another society or they never do develop writing -- even after being exposed to it from other cultures.

It seems MUCH more likely to me that the Mayans learned the concept of writing from the Lehites than the idea that writing was 1) independently developed, 2) in the precise area of the Americas that the Lehites probably lived, 3) at the precise time that the Book of Mormon says that the Lehites arrived.

Now add in the fact that the Mayan writing system has similarities to Egyptian hieroglyphs (which the Lehites were familiar with), and the coincidences should astound any honest person.

Now new Olmec writing has been discovered (on a "large stone", nonetheless) which pre-dates the Lehites by about 300 years. But surprise, surprise the Olmec script is totally unrelated to the Mayan script. This is perfectly consistent with the story found in the Book of Mormon. But it is perplexing to scholars who expected that an Olmec script would show the origins of the Mayan script.

New evidence and analysis is now showing that the isthmian script may have descended from the Mayan script instead of the other way around, which is consistent with the northward migration of the Nephites in the Book of Mormon.

It seems like the more we learn about the development of writing in MA, the more it seems consistent with the Book of Mormon.

While I do think that the similar time periods for th Olmecs and the Jaredites is a point in favor of the BoM I think that if the connection between Mayan and Egyptian was impressive that scholars would mention such more often-but as it is I have heard little outside or even inside the LDS arena suggesting that Mayan and Egyptian are similar.

[Jerubaal]

Seems to me that practically everything about God is hidden. From Jesus' resurrected body to the gold plates. Maybe I'm just not in the right place at the right time. Oh, well. What amazes me about the Book of Mormon is that it actually exists in time and space, and that we can have a 500+ page text to discuss. Kudos to Mighty Curelom for being so even-handed in his list of pro's and con's. I would tend to agree with both sides of his list. The deciding factor for me, though, was that danged manifestation of God when I read the Book of Mormon.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Consiglieri, that ain't M. LeCurelom, that's Californina kid. I think you got them mixed up because MC used to have an avatar of a smoking chimp, and now CK has an avatar of a chimp.

[JarMan]

While I do think that the similar time periods for th Olmecs and the Jaredites is a point in favor of the BoM I think that if the connection between Mayan and Egyptian was impressive that scholars would mention such more often-but as it is I have heard little outside or even inside the LDS arena suggesting that Mayan and Egyptian are similar.

Mayan and Egyptian are not even remotely similar. One is an ancient MA language and the other is an ancient African language. What is similar is the way in which the languages are written. The spoken Mayan languages already existed when the Lehites arrived. The idea of writing was applied to this existing language.

Consider Navajo which now has a phonetic written language after existing for centuries without one. Navajo and English are not even remotely related. But the way in which they are written is: they are both generally phonetic and both uses similar Latin characters.

Consider these similarities between Mayan and Egyptian:

1) They both have glyphs that represent a single word

2) They both have glyphs that represent syllables (though the Mayan tend to be in the form of C-V while the Egyptian tends to be C,C-C, or C-C-C without vowels).

3) Both languages combine single word glyphs and sylabbic glyphs to form "hieroglyphics."

4) They are both written in columns. Most Mayan is written in column pairs. But the recently discovered, earlier San Bartolo writing shows hieroglyphs in a single column.

5) Both systems use every-day symbols as a basis for many of their glyphs rather than purely abstract symbols.

I think the fact that the spoken languages are so different from each other has caused many to dismiss the similarities that exist in the written forms as being purely coincidental.

[Chris Smith]

Consiglieri, that ain't M. LeCurelom, that's Californina kid. I think you got them mixed up because MC used to have an avatar of a smoking chimp, and now CK has an avatar of a chimp.

I definitely don't smoke. And neither does my avatar.

[JarMan]

A dream I had of Joseph, Cowdery and and another man in a small cabin room with sawdust on the floor. It was whilst I was in the MTC. I asked them what they were doing and they looked as though they were concocting something to make money and I didnt feel good going in the room.

How, exactly, do men who are "concocting something to make money" act? Were they rubbing their hands together and laughing maniacally? "Muahahaha! Muahahaha!" I can imagine your trepidation in entering that room.

[Luigi]

Mayan and Egyptian are not even remotely similar. One is an ancient MA language and the other is an ancient African language. What is similar is the way in which the languages are written. The spoken Mayan languages already existed when the Lehites arrived. The idea of writing was applied to this existing language.

Consider Navajo which now has a phonetic written language after existing for centuries without one. Navajo and English are not even remotely related. But the way in which they are written is: they are both generally phonetic and both uses similar Latin characters.

Consider these similarities between Mayan and Egyptian:

1) They both have glyphs that represent a single word

2) They both have glyphs that represent syllables (though the Mayan tend to be in the form of C-V while the Egyptian tends to be C,C-C, or C-C-C without vowels).

3) Both languages combine single word glyphs and sylabbic glyphs to form "hieroglyphics."

4) They are both written in columns. Most Mayan is written in column pairs. But the recently discovered, earlier San Bartolo writing shows hieroglyphs in a single column.

5) Both systems use every-day symbols as a basis for many of their glyphs rather than purely abstract symbols.

I think the fact that the spoken languages are so different from each other has caused many to dismiss the similarities that exist in the written forms as being purely coincidental.

I see your point here but with the Navajo example you gave-anyone can see that English letters were used and so if a historian found Navajo writings 2,000 years from now he may be able to determine that English and Navajo were completely different, unrelated languages, but he would clearly see that the Navajo writing system came because of the English writing system. The claim here would have to be then that Mayans simply saw Egyptian hieroglyphs the Nephites had(and my problem with this theory is why Nephi wouldn't mention running into an entire group of people when he mentions all the animals he found is beyond me) and that they decided to create their own system based on the same principles without borrowing the Egyptian heiroglyphs themselves-which it seems would have been much easier. But, you never know-it could have happened.

[Daniel Peterson]

Let Mormons believe whatever they choose to believe, but I'll follow rational thinking here.

Sorry. I'm not inclined to allow your pretense of a monopoly on rational thinking to pass unchallenged.

If you have evidence to demonstrate that Latter-day Saints are less capable of reason than the general populace, I hope you'll share it.

[Ref]

Sorry. I'm not inclined to allow your pretense of a monopoly on rational thinking to pass unchallenged.

Similarly, articles published by FARMS in the area of BOM historicity and/or geography which are either totally rejected or ignored by the non-LDS fellow scholars of the likes of Sorenson, Clark, (and/or Hamblin??), in this specific area, probably does more to demonstrate a very distinct monopoly on a certain type of rational thinking: Their (or perhaps your) "rational thinking"!

If you have evidence to demonstrate that Latter-day Saints are less capable of reason than the general populace, I hope you'll share it.

Similarly, if you have evidence to demonstrate that Latter-day Saint scholarship provided by the likes of Clark, Sorenson, (and/or Hamblin??) in this area of BOM historicity and/or geography is capable of drawing any acceptance (or even passive recognition) from the non-LDS general scholarly populace in this area, I hope you'll share it as well.

Otherwise, all you've demonstrated is that all this attempted scholarship, published at FARMS and repeated on boards like this, is doing is turning up the volume in the same isolated room. And all that really does, obviously, is make noise louder in this same room. But it carries nowhere!

However, I suppose a claim to "rational thinking" can be made in any response if you stratify the sample size accordingly!

[cksalmon]

Sorry. I'm not inclined to allow your pretense of a monopoly on rational thinking to pass unchallenged.

If you have evidence to demonstrate that Latter-day Saints are less capable of reason than the general populace, I hope you'll share it.

Well, I blame it on D'Unk's usage of rum! (Forgive me, my brother and his wife are currently on holiday in Hawaii! Let's not go there.)

Speaking on behalf of D'Unk (a violation worthy of board censure, I realize), I'd say you've caught him in a less than exuberant mood. Try your call again tomorrow.

No one, in the know, so to speak, could accuse LDS of being less capable of reason than the general populace. I think one might find D'Unk in a more ebullient mood tomorrow.

Oh, great! I'm going to get it from both sides tomorrow!

Best to you, DCP.

CKS

[Uncle Dale]

Sorry. I'm not inclined to allow your pretense of a monopoly on rational thinking to pass unchallenged.

If you have evidence to demonstrate that Latter-day Saints are less capable of reason than the general populace, I hope you'll share it.

So long as I am considered to be myself one of the Latter Day Saints,

such a demonstration would appear to be self-defeating.

If you or one of your associates would like to have an advance copy

of the Rigdon book, let me know late next year and I'll send one. I hope

that the better part of what I have to say there will be taken as rational.

Uncle Dale

[cksalmon]

So long as I am considered to be myself one of the Latter Day Saints,

such a demonstration would appear to be self-defeating.

If you or one of your associates would like to have an advance copy

of the Rigdon book, let me know late next year and I'll send one. I hope

that the better part of what I have to say there will be taken as rational.

Uncle Dale

Always best to let your Uncle speak for himself.

Best.

CKS

[Daniel Peterson]

Similarly, articles published by FARMS in the area of BOM historicity and/or geography which are either totally rejected or ignored by the non-LDS fellow scholars of the likes of Sorenson, Clark, (and/or Hamblin??), in this specific area, probably does more to demonstrate a very distinct monopoly on a certain type of rational thinking: Their (or perhaps your) "rational thinking"!

Other than expressing your disdain for Mormonism and Mormons, do you actually imagine that you're responding to anything I said?

I certainly wasn't suggesting that either I or my fellow Latter-day Saints enjoy a monopoly on rational ability. It was precisely against such a claim that I was reacting.

I would be interested, by the way, in seeing any evidence that you might have that non-LDS scholars either "totally reject" the work of Drs. Sorenson, Clark, or Hamblin, or that they have consciously, knowingly, and deliberately chosen to "ignore" it. Please do supply your evidence, if you have any.

Similarly, if you have evidence to demonstrate that Latter-day Saint scholarship provided by the likes of Clark, Sorenson, (and/or Hamblin??) in this area of BOM historicity and/or geography is capable of drawing any acceptance (or even passive recognition) from the non-LDS general scholarly populace in this area, I hope you'll share it as well.

What on earth has this got to do with my post?

If you want to conduct a poll or sponsor a popularity contest, by all means do it.

Otherwise, all you've demonstrated is that all this attempted scholarship, published at FARMS and repeated on boards like this, is doing is turning up the volume in the same isolated room. And all that really does, obviously, is make noise louder in this same room. But it carries nowhere!

If you have a substantive argument to make, make an argument. The quality of the logic or the adduced evidence in a scholarly publication is not determined by the size of the audience that reads it.

However, I suppose a claim to "rational thinking" can be made in any response if you stratify the sample size accordingly!

English, please?

To UDale: I would indeed like to have a copy of the Rigdon book.